Bush asked for $87 Billion to run the entire war in Iraq for a year. She wants 3 times that for Louisiana alone, and let’s not forget the storm made landfall in MISSISSIPPI!

The entire state of Louisiana (pre-Katrina) boasted a population of 4.5 million. New Orleans, half a million. She’s asking for half a million dollars PER NEW ORLEANS RESIDENT. Or more than $55,500 for every single resident of the state!

This from a state that received money for levees and flood control, and spent it on bridges and Mardi Gras. This from a state NOTORIOUS for it’s political corruption and its misappropriation of funds. This from a Senator who’s competence is in question – who’s hysterical rants about punching the President are felonious – who’s qualifications for the office consist of which Louisiana political big-wigs she’s related to.

If it wasn’t for the frightening possibility that she’ll actually GET a huge unaccountable appropriation of federal tax dollars… it would be laughable.

My proposal is this. NOT ONE DOLLAR gets just handed over to the State of Louisiana Carte Blanche. Let the state ask for a project, and let the Feds send in the Corps of Engineers (or Halliburton!) to build it. No free and clear cash to be misspent. The US is a compassionate nation. We WILL sacrifice to rebuild. But let’s not be schmucks. Let's not get "Stuck on Stupid". Let’s not just open our pockets for the picking.

Rebuilding the necessary infrastructure WILL be done. But once the city is dry, secure, protected against the winds and rains, and has a reasonable re-establishment of infrastructure such as roads & highways, and services such as water, sewer, electric, gas, trash disposal, police, fire, ambulance and hospitals… it’s time for the feds to pack up and let the city and state shape their own destiny with their own tax revenues.

What will be the face of the NEW New Orleans? MANY of those who have left do not intend to return to live in New Orleans again. The anticipated population of a rebuilt New Orleans will be half that of the Pre-Katrina city. Whole neighborhoods will need to be bulldozed as part of the cleanup. Many of them are in the lowest lying areas. Will these be rebuilt into residential neighborhoods again? I would suggest the idea of residential neighborhoods being rebuilt at the bottom of the bowl is probably NOT in the best interest of the city. The poor areas that flooded so badly did so because they were the low-points geographically. Water tends to run downhill. (The poor were there because these neighborhoods had the lowest property values… probably a function of their negative elevation!)

Any rebuilding should be planned with FORETHOUGHT as to what the structure and makeup of the city will be. Building should be planned in terms of functionality, accounting for population and demographics. I have my doubts whether Louisiana elected officials are capable of doing this job – but once the feds establish the basic services listed above… it should then be Louisiana’s baby to raise to glory or to shame.

The whole Global Warming issue is a hanging curveball. Let me take a whack:

1) The Kyoto Treaty went down in flames in the Senate 95-0. So how is that Bush’s fault?? Not a SINGLE Senator backed it. Why is it even a topic of discussion? (Answer: Because it would meet the leftist goal of crippling our capitalist economy!)

2) There has never been conclusive evidence that global warming is NOT a normal cyclical trend between periods of global cooling, or that it is caused by CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gasses".

3) There has been a recorded increase in solar output over the last 150 years, which could alone account for Global Warming.

4) The eruption of Mt. St. Helens spewed more "greenhouse gasses" (and ozone depleting gasses) into the atmosphere in a single event than all anthropogenic causes thru recorded time. Yet MANKIND causes global warming?

5) The planet MARS is experiencing climbing global temperatures. Did our rovers cause it? Are they emitting CO2? See #3?

6) Ruminating animals, domestic and wild, emit (fart) more volitile organic compounds (also blamed for global warming) than all of human industry. Domestic cattle get the blame, but deer, elk, sheep, Antelope,buffalo and caribou also ruminate. (Aren't the environmental wackos trying to PROTECT the caribou by preventing Alaskan drilling?)

Conclusion: Man doesn't cause global warming. It is a natural process. Man can't STOP global warming. The laws of Nature (and Nature's God, to cite a phrase from the Declaration of Independence) are still more powerful than mankind, despite man's grandiose view of himself. It is still true that we can talk about the weather, but we can't do anything about it.

“Kids, What’s the matter with kids today?” sang Paul Lynde in Bye Bye Birdie. And for successive generations before and after, the question’s been asked by the parenting generation. And yet, today, we are seeing an alarming trend amongst our Gen Y kids in terms of their respect for authority, their general lack of parental guidance, their general rebellious nature. The battle cry of our teens and tweens is “Challenge All Authority!” Am I ascribing these characteristics to all kids of that age group? Of course not. Yet no one can watch the news these days or walk the mall without being confronted with the fact that in all too many cases, our kids fit this description. Why is this crop of kids so violent? So argumentative? So at war with the world. So at war with itself?

Few dare ask why. Fewer still venture a hypothesis to answer that question. Some meekly offer, “It’s the parents – they don’t control their kids.” But this is inadequate and lame. Many GOOD parents TRY to exercise their authority and to express their caring parental guidance, but are at a loss as to how to do so effectively. I am here proposing that the answer may lie in the seemingly lost parental tool of Enforced Futility.

Remember back when WE were kids. Remember the boundaries that were drawn for us. WHY didn’t we challenge the really big ones? Why did we DO what we were told when our parents gave us their LAST WORD on a subject? Because we KNEW it was FUTILE not to. We weren’t going to win. This parenting generation seems to have lost the ability, or the will, to take that LAST WORD stand and to make absolute futility a reality in the minds of their kids.

GASP! I hear some of you saying, “How harsh!!” Not really. Please read on, and I’ll explain.

Random Hope

Now I’m not one to quickly affiliate myself with behaviorist psychology – ascribing to mankind the traits of animals - very freely; however, one of B F Skinner’s most famous experiments with rats illustrates my point rather well. Skinner put rats into apparatus essentially consisting of a box with a lever. He rewarded the rats when they pressed the lever. When he rewarded every lever press, the rats pressed the bar fairly frequently. When he never rewarded the behavior, it was eventually extinguished and they ceased to try. One particularly interesting part of the experiment involved RANDOMLY rewarding the pressing of the lever, while ignoring the lever press most of the time. This produced the most continuous and incessant pressing of the bar. The random hope that was generated in this scenario stimulated the rats to KEEP TRYING!

In the same way, we see the same essential behavior being borne out in humans every day in the casinos. The random hope of the jackpot keeps thousands pulling those slot machine arms. The rational mind tells them that the odds of making a profit are against them – but they keep feeding the machine coins. Why? Because every once in a while, someone hits a jackpot! And so it is with our kids. Why do they keep whining and complaining and challenging? Why is NO never NO for them? Because our parenting generation is afraid to make a confrontation and take a stand, ENFORCING FUTILITY. We SOMETIMES will cave in. We provide that random hope.

Am I saying that our parenting generation never lays down the law? NO. I’m saying that they haven’t set up that place where the child knows it’s useless to continue because there is no random hope. Am I saying parents should be tyrants never exercising flexibility? Absolutely not! But there needs to be a distinction between parental flexibility and absolute boundaries. I believe I can offer a tool for that.

The Futility Phrase

A simple phrase is devised to communicate that “That’s my final word on the subject – There is no negotiation. There is no compromise. There is no modification. Each family will choose its own phrase to suit its personality. Perhaps it is the Neanderthal sounding “dzzzzt” or maybe you prefer a deific “I Have Spoken”. Not your style? How about something more on the kids’ level like “F.I.” (stands for Fo-Get It!). Fan of Star Trek? How about “Make it So”. Whatever you choose, when you use it, there is NO compromise, NO turning back. And once you start to use it, and your kids begin to understand that this phrase means, “Give it up – you ain’t gonna win”, you’ll begin to see results.

The Flip-Side

Remember, too, that kids have a spirit which is not to be crushed. We as parents need to allow flexibility within our boundaries. The kid raised with CONSTANT futility will become damaged. We must temper our need to control with their need to explore their own options.

In another experiment, dogs who learned futility by being subjected to inescapable shocks when put into a closed cage and after ringing a bell, simply trembled in fear when put into open cages which they could leap out of, and the bell was rung. They had learned UTTER futility. This is not what we wish to instill in our kids.

An excellent book outlining this counterbalance is called Learned Optimism, which should be easily found in any library.

7) The Federal Government will commit to nearly bankrupting itself to recover from disasters.

Islamoterrorists may be suicidal but they are not stupid. They have most certainly made note of Katrina and its aftermath. Their strategic objectives have always been to wreak as much havoc on our nation as possible with the use of the fewest assets.

What potential targets might now be attractive, given the new data they’ve assimilated on Katrina? Dam & levy systems, especially in Democrat dominated regions? How about refineries, pipelines, etc. What would happen if a small suitcase nuke were detonated just offshore? What would happen if a warning of such a device were given stating it was “somewhere several miles offshore in the gulf of Mexico”, and would be detonated in 24 hrs! How about off the California Coast?

Our enemies are watching and learning. We can only hope our Homeland Security people are also!

My how times have changed! Once upon a time, our educators ACTUALLY EDUCATED kids. What’s happened?

Remember when many old timers stated that they “only had an 8th grade education”? Well, don’t look down your nose at that! They may well have been better educated then today’s High School grads (or beyond?).

What appears below is the 1895 eighth-grade final exam from Salina, Kansas, USA - taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.

8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895

Grammar (Time, one hour)

1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters.

2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.

3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph

4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of"lie,""play," and "run."

5. Define case; Illustrate each case.

6. What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.

7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.

2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?

3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?

4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?

5. Find the cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.

6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.

7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per metre?

8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.

9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?

10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided

2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.

3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.

4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.

5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.

6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.

7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?

8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)

1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication

2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?

3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals

4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.'

5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.

6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.

7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.

8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?

9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.

10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

Notice that the exam took FIVE HOURS to complete. Gives a new perspective and a lot more respect for an old timer with "only an 8th grade education", doesn't it?! Also makes you wonder what has happened to today’s education system.

Nowadays, more than 50% of our state budgets go to public education. Yet you can’t show me an 8th grader who can pass this exam!

Could you pass? Right now I could get about a 70 on this exam… which would pass with a D, and I consider myself to be fairly saavy academically. At least I know how to find the answers if I really needed them. I wonder if today’s kids would finish 8th grade with a passing grade even if we gave them this exam as an open-book take-home final exam over a weekend, along with a high-speed internet connection and a Pentium 4 connected to it!

Much fun has been poked at the recent announcement that the FBI would be devoting a small task force to the enforcement of Obscenity Law. Some would question whether this is pulling needed and limited resources away from the War on Terror. Ridicule has been launched in the press, and reportedly, even from within the Agency itself. It may well seem laughable at first blush. (Sorry, I can’t resist a good double-entendre!)

But maybe the issue may deserve a deeper examination. As to whether we can spare the resources, the reports I’ve seen indicate this taskforce would be comprised of merely 8 agents and a couple supervisory personnel. Given the number of agents the agency has, this is NOT going to significantly impact our intelligence gathering capability in our War on Terror.

The argument itself is flawed, as taken to its logical conclusion, the enforcement of any Federal laws like those pertaining to interstate transportation of stolen property, interstate flight to avoid prosecution, drug traffic, tax evasion, and even alcohol and tobacco regulation are all distractions from the War on Terror! Pardon me, but isn’t the FBI charged with enforcement of ALL federal laws?

It is important to note that there is a difference between pornography and obscenity. (This distinction is frequently and perhaps deliberately blurred by the media.) While a work may well be pornographic, it does not necessarily automatically meet the legal definitions of obscenity. Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment (Roth v United states and reaffirmed in Miller v California and other cases) though non-obscene pornography is afforded this protection.

According to the Miller decision:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25.

Therefore, to be obscene a pornographic work must offend “contemporary community standards” AND fail the L.A.P.S test as lacking literary, artistic, political or scientific value. In other words, it’s gotta be really bad!

The “community standards” clause also leaves a LOT of latitude. Something that causes a riot in Iowa wouldn’t raise an eyebrow in New York or Los Angeles. However, when a work DOES meet the legal definition of obscenity, it is NOT protected by the First Amendment and is subject to legal restriction.

So why bother anyway? There is a pervasive attitude of “so what” as regards obscenity law. Even within the Agency there are echoes of “who cares”. Well, apart from the social impact of pornography on society at large (and so much the more the case with legally obscene porn), the pornography industry is a very significant source of revenue for organized crime and for terror groups. As such, it is valuable to at least keep tabs on it. Much useful intelligence about more serious crime and security threats could come from keeping a federal finger on this pulse.

No, it’s not the most glamorous assignment an FBI agent might draw. Yes, it will probably engender a chuckle or two. But enforcement of federal obscenity law is not the worthless exercise the mainstream media would have us believe it is.

An open letter to Paul Murdock Architects info@paulmurdocharchitects.com - designers of the "Crescent of Embrace" proposed memorial to Flight 93. Fashioned as a red crescent - invoking the best known symbol associated with Islam, and sporting meditative wind chimes!

Sirs

I would STRONGLY suggest a complete re-design of the 9/11 Memorial to Flight 93 without ANY resemblance whatsoever to the so called "CRESCENT of EMBRACE". Lose the crescent entirely. The association of the crescent with with the religious symbols of the Islamic terrorists is so obvious as to imply either STUPIDITY or INTENT on the part of the designer.

Lose the WindChimes. This is a tribute to heroic ACTION in the face of terror. Commemorating "Let's Roll" with meditative windchimes is highly incongruous. The passengers of Flight 93 TOOK ON THEIR HIJACKERS and brought them down short of their target. This is not something you commemorate with KUMBAYA!

Once upon a time, a great and powerful man accepted an expensive gift which was lavished upon him. Complaint was made that this was extravagant waste, and could have been better used by giving it to the poor. His response, "There will always be the poor."

Before you become incensed and cry "How callous!", realize that the gift was precious ointment. The recipient was Jesus (an extraordinarily COMPASSIONATE and LOVING man, regardless of whether you assign Him Deity), and the complainer was Judas!

The fact is that we WILL always have the poor. Poverty is more than a lack of money. It is a culture. A mindset. The more government does to "help", the more entrenched the under class becomes in its place. Hopelessness and dependency serve to maintain people in poverty. The politicians who promise to "take care of them" don't raise them out of poverty to independence... they FOSTER further dependence for their own political gain. It is not in their political interest to educate and advance these people out of poverty; else they would no longer NEED them.

It has been shown that if people will simply do 3 things, their chances of being poor are drastically reduced:

1) Graduate High School

2) Don't get pregnant till married

3) Don't get married till past teenage.

In addition, if parents stay together and don't divorce - the odds of success are even better.

So why is it that the Left opposes school choice, merit pay or anything that would improve education of our kids... promotes "sex education" which simply teaches kids how to do it sooner and justifies little restraint, and the sanctity of marriage is under assault? Could it be that they NEED to maintain a certain percentage of the population as an under-class?

Hurricane Katrina has the left pointing to the Republican led Federal Government as unresponsive to the "poor black folk" in New Orleans. (I've written extensively about just how responsive the Feds were, and how they were blocked by the Democratic politicians within Louisiana... but that's another matter!) But how much better have Democrats done in aiding the poor?

Since the institution of the Welfare State and the proliferation of entitlements under Democratic administrations and 40 plus years of Democratic control of the Congress, have we seen any progress in the "War on Poverty?" Looks like a "quagmire" to me! What's our "exit strategy"? How do we define victory? Or defeat?

We've created a society in which the biggest portion of our taxes goes to entitlements and transfer payments. Simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. But is Paul any better off? No! He's still uneducated, under-employed, ill-housed, receiving sub-par healthcare and he's still dependent on the guy robbing Peter! On the other hand, Peter has more and more of his hard-earned income appropriated from him. As it becomes more difficult to become a successful entrepreneur, as Peter sees his capital dwindling under the increasing burden of taxation - he is less able to provide jobs to Paul. All the while, Peter is BLAMED for the ills of Paul because he resists paying MORE. Any RELIEF to Peter is suddenly "Tax cuts for the Rich".

Sadly, there is virtually no chance that any of this will ever change. And Jesus' words "...the poor you will have always..." ring truer all the time.

As Kennedy and crew work to derail Judge Roberts, the good judge is holding his own. He is frustrating the Liberal grandstanders and speach makers by refusing to pre-decide matters that may come before the court.

It's looking like Bork v Ginsburg! (Both names are taking their place in our vocabulary as VERBS!)

I am not the diplomatic type, bound by tons of restraint... but I would have loved to have heard the following as Judge Roberts' opening statement:

"Senators, I thank you for the opportunity to come before you to be evaluated for confirmation to the high calling to which the President has nominated me.

I stand ready to answer any questions regarding my credentials, training, experience and qualifications to hold the office. My personal character and integrity are also legitimate areas of inquiry which I will happily field questions on.

The Senate's constitutional responsibility to Advise and Consent as regards the President's privilege and duty to nominate his judicial choices charges the Senate to examine the competence and qualification of the nominee to hold the office.

It is not, however, the purvue of the Senate to inject political opinions into the process. It is inappropriate to attempt to pre-judge matters that may come before the court, and it is inappropriate to try to force a nominee to do so.

As Justice Ginsburg did during her confirmation hearings - I will refuse to answer any question calling for such a prejudgement. For any and all matters that would come before me as a Justice of the Supreme Court, I am duty bound to hear the evidence as presented at that time, and make my judgement based on that evidence. To discuss such matters in advance of such a case being brought and such evidence being presented is to dismiss as irrelevant the very process of a case being argued before the Supreme Court! I will do no such thing!

The sad reality of these hearings is that they have lost their significance as a finder of fact. It is unlikely any new information will come forth from these hearings, and it is unlikely that any Senator's mind will be changed pursuant to these proceedings. Unlike a court case, this jury has already reached their verdict, and the hearings are just the opportunity for the jurors to testify. This ought not so to be, though it has indeed become the reality.

Therefore, I would invite you good Senators to question my qualifications and my personal character. I will give my honest answers. But I implore you to please refrain from making political points while posing questions that I will rightly refuse to answer.

This hearing is not the appropriate venue for speach making. Let's make short work of this process and get on about the business of casting your votes for or against me.